Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Youngstown Area to Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 19435-19447 [E7-7352]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–1022; FRL–8301–7]
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of
the Youngstown Area to Attainment of
the 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
AGENCY:
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request for a
redesignation of its portion of the
Youngstown area to attainment of the 8hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a
request for EPA approval of an ozone
maintenance plan for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. The State public hearing on the
submittal was held on January 9, 2007.
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Youngstown area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that
the State’s ozone maintenance plan for
the area is acceptable and, in
conjunction with projected emissions in
the Pennsylvania portion of the area
(Mercer County), will provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in these Counties through 2018.
EPA is proposing approval of the State’s
request to redesignate Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties, Ohio for
purposes of transportation conformity
determinations.
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272,
requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus to
carry out policy objectives, so long as
such standards are not inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use
voluntary consensus standards, EPA has
no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use such
standards, and it would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in place of a program
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Therefore, the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19435
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, National parks, Wilderness
areas.
Dated: April 6, 2007.
Walter W. Kovalick,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7–7348 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments must be received on
or before May 18, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2006–1022, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
• Fax: (312) 886–5824.
• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19436
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office’s official hours of
operation are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–
1022. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise
protected, through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters and any
form of encryption, and should be free
of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments,
go to section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hardcopy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Patricia
Morris, Environmental Scientist, at
(312) 353–8656, before visiting the
Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8656,
morris.patricia@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ Is used, we mean
the EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as
follows:
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation
to Attainment?
V. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s
Request and What Is the Basis for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Ozone
Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used
To Support Conformity Determinations?
VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions—The EPA may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To
Take?
We are proposing to take several
related actions for Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. First,
we are proposing to determine that the
interstate Youngstown area (officially,
the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon PA-OH
area as defined for 8-hour ozone
designation purposes) has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, we are
proposing to approve Ohio’s ozone
maintenance plan for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties as
a requested revision to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
maintenance plan is designed to keep
the area in attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the next 11 years,
through 2018. Thirdly, we are proposing
to find that the Ohio portion of this area
(Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties), has met the requirements for
redesignation to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Fourth, as supported by, and consistent
with, the ozone maintenance plan, we
are also proposing to approve the 2009
and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties for transportation conformity
determination purposes.
These proposed actions pertain to the
designations of Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS and to the
emission controls in these counties
related to the attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC
or NOX emissions source in these
counties or live in these counties, this
proposed rule may impact or apply to
you. It may also impact you if you are
involved in transportation planning or
implementation of emission controls in
this area. It may also impact you if you
breathe air which has passed through
the Youngstown area, or if you are
concerned with clean air, human health
or the environment.
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
A. General Background
In EPA’s April 30, 2004, rulemaking
establishing designations and
classifications for the 8-hour ozone
standard, EPA designated the
Youngstown area as subpart 1
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA based the designation on
ozone data collected during the 2001–
2003 period.
On December 4, 2006, the State of
Ohio submitted a request for
redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull,
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
and Columbiana Counties to attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
ozone data collected in these counties
and Mercer County, Pennsylvania
during the 2004–2006 period. On
January 9, 2007, the State of Ohio held
a public hearing on the ozone
redesignation request and ozone
maintenance plan. Based on a February
15, 2007, submittal from the State, all
information contained in the State’s
December 4, 2006, ozone redesignation
request submittal was unchanged
through the State’s public review
process.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
B. What Is the Impact of the December
22, 2006, United States Court of
Appeals Decision Regarding EPA’s
Phase 1 Implementation Rule?
1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004). South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F. 3d 882
(D.C. Cir. 2006). The Court held that
certain provisions of EPA’s Phase I Rule
were inconsistent with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected
EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8hour standard in nonattainment areas
under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also
held that EPA improperly failed to
retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for
failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4)
certain conformity requirements for
certain types of Federal actions. The
Court upheld EPA’s authority to revoke
the 1-hour standard provided there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s ruling
on this redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not
believe that the Court’s ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent
EPA from finalizing this redesignation.
EPA believes that the Court’s decision,
as it currently stands or as it may be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
modified based upon any petition for
rehearing that has been filed, imposes
no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment,
because in either circumstance
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 8-hour standard,
the court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons
for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for
the 8-hour standard, and remanded that
matter to the Agency. Consequently, it
is possible that this area could, during
a remand to EPA, be reclassified under
Subpart 2. although any future decision
by EPA to classify this area under
subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes
that this does not mean that
redesignation cannot now go forward.
This belief is based upon (1) EPA’s
longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requirements in
accordance with the requirements due
at the time the request was submitted;
and (2) consideration of the inequity of
applying retroactively any requirements
that might be applied in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, the Youngstown
area was classified under Subpart 1 and
was obligated to meet the Subpart 1
requirements. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to
qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division). See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation. See, e.g., also 68 FR
25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
DC Circuit has recognized the inequity
in such retroactive rulemaking. See
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63
(D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit
upheld a District Court’s ruling refusing
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19437
to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly, here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP
requirements under Subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard
requirements, Mahoning and Trumbull
Counties and also, separately,
Columbiana County were designated as
an Attainment area subject to a Clean
Air Act section 175A maintenance plan
under the 1-hour standard. The Court’s
ruling does not impact redesignation
requests for these types of areas.
First, there are no conformity
requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests, including the
requirement to submit a transportation
conformity SIP.1 Under longstanding
EPA policy, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirement as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390.
See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See
also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa,
FL redesignation). EPA approved Ohio’s
general and transportation conformity
SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646)
and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395),
respectively.
Second, with respect to the three
other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found
were not properly retained, Mahoning
and Trumbull Counties and separately
1 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently
requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to
reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from
the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are
established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
19438
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Columbiana County are attainment areas
subject to maintenance plans for the 1hour standard, and the NSR,
contingency measure (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee
provision requirements no longer apply
to an area that has been redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast
should not alter requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the
redesignation of this area.
IV. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation to Attainment?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment provided
that:
(1) The Administrator determines that
the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS based on current air quality
data; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved an applicable state
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP,
Federal air pollution control
regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable emission reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting
the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA; and (5) the state containing the
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part
D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignations in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA provided further guidance
on processing redesignation requests in
several guidance documents. A listing of
pertinent guidance documents is
provided in other redesignation actions
(for example in the Federal Register of
September 9, 2005, at 70 FR 53606).
V. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s
Request and What Is the Basis for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine
that the Youngstown area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve
the ozone maintenance plan for the
Ohio portion of this area (Columbiana,
Mahoning and Trumbull counties) and
the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by
this ozone maintenance plan; and, 3)
approve the redesignation of the Ohio
portion to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
The basis for our proposed
determination and approval is as
follows:
1. The Youngstown Area Has Attained
the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
if there are no violations of the NAAQS,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix
I based on the most recent three
complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring
data at all monitoring sites in the area.
For each monitor in the area and nearby,
the average of the annual fourth-high
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured and recorded
over a three-year period must not
exceed the ozone standard. Based on the
ozone data rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50 appendix
I, the 8-hour standard is attained if the
area’s ozone design value 2 is 0.085 ppm
(85 ppb) or lower. The data must be
collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and
must be recorded in EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS). The ozone monitors
generally should have remained at the
same locations for the duration of the
monitoring period required to
demonstrate attainment (for three years
or more 3).
As part of the December 4, 2006,
ozone redesignation request, the Ohio
EPA submitted summarized ozone
monitoring data indicating the top four
daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations for each monitoring site
in the Youngstown area during the
2004–2006 period. When the
redesignation request was submitted,
the complete 2006 monitoring data had
not been quality assured and the data
table submitted by Ohio EPA shows less
than 75% data for the Ohio monitoring
sites. However, now the Ohio EPA has
completed all quality assurance
procedures and the AQS system has
over 75% data completeness for the
Ohio sites. The following table
summarizes the worst-case ozone
concentrations that are part of the
quality-assured ozone data collected
and recorded in these Counties. These
data have been entered into EPA’s AQS.
The annual fourth-high 8-hour daily
maximum ozone concentrations, along
with their three-year averages are
summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1.—FOURTH-HIGH 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
[In parts per billion (ppb)]
Monitoring site
Mahoning OH ........................................................
Trumbull OH .........................................................
Trumbull OH .........................................................
Mercer PA .............................................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
County
2004
345 Oakhill ...........................................................
6346 Kinsman-Bloomfield Rd ...............................
842 Youngstown-Kingsville Rd ............................
Pa518 (New Castle Road) & Pa418 ....................
74
78
80
76
2005
83
83
87
87
2006
76
74
82
79
Average
77
78
83
79
These data show that the site-specific
ozone design values (average fourthhigh daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations over the period of 2004–
2006) for all monitoring sites in the
Youngstown area are below the 85 ppb
average ozone standard violation cut-off.
These data support the conclusion that
the Youngstown area ozone monitors
did not record a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard during the 2004–2006
period, and monitored attainment of the
standard during this period.
As discussed below with respect to
the ozone maintenance plan, the State
commits to continue ozone monitoring
in these Counties.
We believe that the data submitted by
the State to the AQS provide an
adequate demonstration that the
Youngstown area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we
propose to find that the Youngstown
2 The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone
design value in the area.
3 EPA generally opposes terminating or relocating
monitors at sites that are currently recording
violations of the ozone standard. In addition, EPA
encourages states to continue monitoring at most
sites over the long term to confirm maintenance of
the ozone standard and to support the
determination of robust ozone concentration trends.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
area, including Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
2. Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties Have Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA and These
Areas Have a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
We have determined that the State of
Ohio has met all currently applicable
SIP requirements for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements). We have determined
that the Ohio SIP meets currently
applicable SIP requirements under
subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA
(requirements specific to basic ozone
nonattainment areas). See section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition,
we have determined that the Ohio SIP
is fully approved with respect to all
applicable requirements. See section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making
these determinations, we noted the CAA
requirements that are applicable to the
areas, and determined that the
applicable portions of the SIP meeting
these requirements are fully approved
under section 110(k) of the CAA. We
note that SIPs must be fully approved
only with respect to currently
applicable requirements of the CAA,
those CAA requirements applicable to
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties at the time the State submits
the final, complete ozone redesignation
request for these areas.
a. Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties Have Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. To qualify for redesignation of
an area to attainment under this
interpretation, the state and the area
must meet the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the
State’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request for the area. See
also the September 17, 1993, Michael
Shapiro memorandum and 66 FR 12459,
12465–12466 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the state’s submittal of a
complete redesignation request remain
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
applicable until a redesignation of the
area to attainment of the standard is
approved, but are not required as
prerequisites to redesignation. See
Section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See
also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St.
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements: Section
110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the
general requirements for a SIP, which
include: Enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques; provisions for the
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality; and
programs to enforce the emission
limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section
110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These requirements and SIP elements
include, but are not limited to, the
following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has
been adopted by the State after
reasonable public notice and a hearing;
(b) provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
(c) implementation of a source permit
program; (d) provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and part D requirements (New
Source Review (NSR)) for new sources
or major source modifications; (e)
criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; (f) provisions for air quality
modeling; and, (g) provisions for public
and local agency participation.
SIP requirements and elements are
discussed in the following EPA
documents: ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992; ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992; and ‘‘State
Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator, September 17,
1993.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires SIPs to contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19439
from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To
implement this provision, EPA required
states to establish programs to address
transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP call
and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)).
EPA has also found, generally, that
states have not submitted SIPs under
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the
interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR
21147, April 25, 2005). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a
state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s classification. EPA
believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state.
We believe that these requirements
should not be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. Further, we believe that
the other section 110 elements
described above that are not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions
and that are not linked with an area’s
attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is
redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and
part D requirements which are linked
with an area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
for evaluating this aspect of a
redesignation request. This approach is
consistent with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with
section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See: Reading,
Pennsylvania proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May
7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399,
October 19, 2001).
We believe that section 110 elements
not linked to the area’s nonattainment
status are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Nonetheless, we also note
that EPA has previously approved
provisions in the Ohio SIP addressing
section 110 elements under the 1-hour
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19440
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ozone standard. We have analyzed the
Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR part 52,
subpart KK and have determined that it
is consistent with the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP,
which has been adopted after reasonable
public notice and hearing, contains
enforceable emission limitations;
requires monitoring, compiling, and
analyzing ambient air quality data;
requires preconstruction review of new
major stationary sources and major
modifications of existing sources;
provisions for adequate funding, staff,
and associated resources necessary to
implement its requirements; requires
stationary source emissions monitoring
and reporting; and, otherwise satisfies
the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2).
Part D SIP requirements: EPA has
determined that the Ohio SIP meets
applicable ozone SIP requirements
under part D of the CAA. Under part D,
for ozone, an area’s classification
(subpart 1, marginal, moderate, serious,
severe, and extreme) indicates the
requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections
172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic
nonattainment area plan requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Subpart 2 of part D, found in section
182 of the CAA, establishes additional
specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas depending on the
area’s nonattainment classification.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For
purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
requirements are those contained in
Subpart I of Part D, in particular in
sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and 176. A
thorough discussion of the requirements
of section 172 can be found in the
General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498). See also 68 FR
4852–4853, in an ozone redesignation
notice of proposed rulemaking for the
St. Louis area, for a discussion of
section 172 requirements.
No requirements for the 8-hour ozone
standard under part D of the CAA will
come due for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties prior to June 15,
2007. For example, the requirement for
an ozone attainment demonstration, as
contained in section 172(c)(1), is not yet
applicable, nor are the requirements for
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) and Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) (section
172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and attainment
plan and RFP contingency measures
(section 172(c)(9)). All of these required
SIP elements are required for submittal
after June 15, 2007, and Ohio has
submitted the public hearing transcript
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
and response to comment to complete
the ozone redesignation request and
maintenance plan for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
prior to the due date. Therefore, none of
the part D requirements are considered
to be applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties for purposes
of redesignation for ozone.
Section 176 conformity requirements:
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to
the air planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded, or approved under
Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit
Act (transportation conformity) as well
as to all other Federally-supported or
funded projects (general conformity).
State conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity
regulations that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate.
In addition to the fact that part D
requirements will not become due prior
to Ohio’s submittal of the complete
ozone redesignation request for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, and, therefore, are not
believed by the EPA to be applicable for
redesignation purposes in this case, EPA
similarly believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity requirements as
not applying for purposes of evaluating
the ozone redesignation request under
section 107(d) of the CAA. EPA believes
that it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating the
ozone redesignation request under
section 107(d) of the CAA because state
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation of areas to attainment of a
NAAQS and Federal conformity rules
apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR
62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa,
Florida). EPA approved Ohio’s general
and transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May
30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
We conclude that Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
have satisfied all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D of the CAA to the extent that these
requirements apply for purposes of
reviewing the State’s ozone
redesignation request.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
b. Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties have a fully
approved applicable SIP under section
110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP
for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties under section
110(k) of the CAA for all applicable
requirements. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.
See the September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum, page 3,
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–
990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 68 FR 25426
(May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the
CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved,
provisions addressing the various
required SIP elements applicable to
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties for purposes of redesignation.
No Mahoning, Trumbull, or Columbiana
County SIP provisions are currently
disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved. As indicated above,
EPA believes that the section 110
elements not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked to the area’s nonattainment
status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of review of the State’s
redesignation request. EPA also believes
that since the part D requirements did
not become due prior to Ohio’s
submittal of the final, complete
redesignation request, they also are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvements in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties Are Due To Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
We believe that the State of Ohio has
adequately demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvements in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties are due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions
resulting from the implementation of
the SIP, Federal measures, and other
State-adopted measures. In making this
demonstration, the State has
documented the changes in VOC and
NOX emissions from all anthropogenic
(man-made or man-based) sources in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties between 2002, an ozone
standard violation year, and 2004, one
of the years in which Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard. The Ohio EPA has also
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
19441
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
discussed permanent and enforceable
emission reductions have occurred
elsewhere in the State and in other
upwind areas that have contributed to
the air quality improvement in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC
and NOX emissions totals from the
anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004
for all counties (Mahoning, Trumbull,
Columbiana, and Mercer) in the
nonattainment area as summarized in
the State’s ozone redesignation
submittal. The Youngstown 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, which is a bistate area, must show emission
reductions across the entire area. The
table shows all the counties in the area
including the Ohio and Pennsylvania
counties.
TABLE 2.—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN MAHONING, TRUMBULL, AND
COLUMBIANA COUNTIES, OHIO AND MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
[Tons per summer day]
2002
2004
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
Total All Source Categories .............................................................................................................................................
70.51
64.60
95.53
82.50
20.80
19.05
Total All Source Categories .............................................................................................................................................
25.44
22.43
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH-PA VOCs ....................................................................................
91.31
83.65
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH-PA NOX ......................................................................................
120.97
104.93
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Total All Source Categories .............................................................................................................................................
Mercer County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
Total All Source Categories .............................................................................................................................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Mercer County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
From the above table, it can be seen
that the Youngstown area experienced
decreases in VOC and NOX
anthropogenic emissions between 2002
and 2004. The State of Ohio concludes
that the differences in the 2002 and
2004 emissions are due primarily to the
implementation of permanent and
enforceable emission control
requirements. The State asserts that
these emission reductions along with
those occurring elsewhere in the State
and in upwind areas have led to
observed improvements in ozone air
quality in the Youngstown area.
Also, the State notes a significant
decline in regional NOX emissions
between 2002 and 2004 as the result of
the implementation of State NOX
emission control rules for combustion
sources, primarily Electric Generating
Units (EGUs), in compliance with EPA’s
NOX SIP call and acid rain control
requirements under title IV of the CAA.
Besides the NOX emission reductions
occurring within the State itself, the
implementation of statewide NOX
emission control rules occurred in many
States east of the Mississippi River.
These emission reductions are assumed
to have contributed significantly to the
air quality improvements in the
Youngstown area through the reduction
of transported ozone and ozone
precursors. The Youngstown area has
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
several EGUs which show reductions
between 2002 and 2004. The EGU NOX
emissions are reduced from 23.36 tons
per year in 2002 to 17.93 tons per day
in 2004. These reductions are
documented in Table 23 of the Ohio
submittal. In addition, the area has
benefited from the NOX emission
reductions occurring throughout the
State of Ohio and in the surrounding
areas. These regional NOX emission
reductions are considered to be
permanent and enforceable.
Besides the implementation of the
regional NOX emission controls, the
State of Ohio notes that, in the mid1990’s, the State of Ohio promulgated
statewide rules requiring Reasonably
Available Control Techniques (RACT)
for significant new sources of VOC
emissions. The RACT rules have been
implemented for significant new VOC
sources locating in Ohio subsequent to
the State’s adoption of the rules. The
Ohio rules are found in OAC Chapter
3745–21. Additional implemented, or
soon to be implemented, emission
control rules include several Federal
rules: (1) Tier II emission standards for
vehicles and gasoline sulfur content
standards (promulgated by EPA in
February 2000 and currently being
implemented); (2) heavy-duty diesel
engine emission control rules
(promulgated by the EPA in July 2000
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and currently being implemented); and,
(3) clean air non-road diesel rule
(promulgated by the EPA in May 2004
and currently being phased in through
2009). All of these rules have
contributed to reducing VOC and NOX
emissions throughout the State of Ohio
(and in other States surrounding Ohio)
and will contribute to further, future
emission reductions in Ohio.
The State of Ohio commits to
maintain the existing VOC and NOX
emission controls after Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties are
redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and these reductions are
required to be maintained under the
Ohio SIP.
4. Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties Have a Fully
Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties to attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Ohio
submitted SIP revision requests to
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown area
through 2018, exceeding the 10 year
minimum maintenance period required
by the CAA.
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
19442
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
a. What Is Required in an Ozone
Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the required elements of air quality
maintenance plans for areas seeking
redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment of a NAAQS. Under section
175A, a maintenance plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves
the redesignation to attainment. Eight
years after the redesignation, the State
must submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that maintenance of
the standard will continue for 10 years
following the initial 10 year
maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations,
the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary, to assure prompt correction
of any future NAAQS violations. The
September 4, 1992, John Calcagni
memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of maintenance
plans. An ozone maintenance plan
should, at minimum, address the
following items: (1) The attainment VOC
and NOX emissions inventories; (2) a
maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for the first 10 years of the
maintenance period; (3) a commitment
to maintain the existing monitoring
network; (4) factors and procedures to
be used for verification of continued
attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan
to prevent and/or correct a future
violation of the NAAQS. The Ohio
maintenance plan is designed to work in
conjunction with Pennsylvania’s
maintenance plan to keep the
Youngstown area in attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
b. What Are the Attainment Emission
Inventories for Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties?
Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX
emission inventories for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties,
including point (significant stationary
sources), other (area sources, smaller
and widely-distributed stationary
sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Railroad
(MAR) mobile sources, non-road (offroad) mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources for 2002 (the base
nonattainment year), 2004 (the
attainment year), 2009, and 2018 (the
projected maintenance year). To
develop the 2004, 2009, and 2018
emission inventories, the Ohio EPA
projected the 2002 emissions applying
various source category-specific growth
factors and emission control factors. The
State has documented how the 2002
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
base year emissions were derived and
how these emissions were projected to
derive the 2004, 2009, and 2018
emissions. The following summarizes
the procedures and sources of data used
by the Ohio EPA to derive the 2002
emissions.
i. Point Sources
The primary source of point source
information was facility-specific
emissions and source activity data
collected annually by the State for
sources covered by Title V 4 source
permits. This information includes
emissions, process rates, source
operating schedules, emissions control
data, and other relevant source
information. The State also used
emissions data provided by EPA’s EGU
emission inventory, maintained to
support the NOX SIP call emissions
trading program and the acid rain
control/trading program. The sources
included in the 2002 point source
emissions inventory were identified
using Ohio’s Title V STARS database
system. The emissions included in this
database are facility-reported actual
emissions.
Ohio EPA defines point source
emissions as those which occur at an
identifiable stationary stack or vent.
Point source emissions not emitted from
discrete stacks or vents are defined to be
fugitive emissions. Facility-specific
fugitive emissions are also reported by
each Title V facility and stored in the
Title V STARS database.
Point source emissions included in
the 2002 base year emissions inventory
were provided to the Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO). LADCO
applied temporal and spatial profiles to
calculate July weekday emissions rates.
The Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties’ emissions
derived from this set of emissions data
were split into EGU emissions and nonEGU emissions for inclusion in the base
year emissions inventory used to
support the Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties ozone
redesignation request.
ii. Area (Other) Sources
Area sources are those sources which
are generally small, numerous, and have
not been inventoried as specific point,
mobile, or biogenic sources. The
emissions for these sources are generally
calculated using various surrogates,
such as population, estimates of
4 Title V of the CAA requires source-specific
emission permits detailing all applicable emission
control requirements and emission limits, as
specified in the SIP, for each source facility covered
by the State’s Title V source permit program and
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
employees in various occupational
groups, etc., and grouped by general
source types. The area source emissions
are typically defined at the county level.
Ohio EPA has either used published
Emission Inventory Improvement
Program (EIIP) emissions estimation
methodologies or other methodologies
typically used by other states to estimate
the area source emissions. Area source
categories include: Various stationary
combustion sources (not including the
EGU sources included in the point
source portion of the emissions
inventory); agricultural pesticides;
architectural surface coatings; auto body
refinishing; consumer and commercial
solvent usage; solvent cleaning; fuel
marketing; graphic arts; hospital
sterilizers; industrial surface coating
(minus point source emissions for this
source category); municipal solid waste
disposal; portable fuel containers;
privately owned treatment works; traffic
markings; human cremation; industrial
fuel combustion; residential fuel
combustion; structural fires; and
miscellaneous source categories. The
State has documented the data sources
used for each of these source categories.
iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources
The non-road mobile source
emissions inventory was generated
regionally by running EPA’s National
Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM).
LADCO applied spatial and temporal
allocations to derive emissions for a July
weekday. The basic non-road algorithm
for calculating emissions in NMIM uses
base year equipment populations,
average load factors, available engine
powers, activity hours and emission
factors to calculate the emissions.
iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR)
Sources
Due to the significance of the
emissions from these mobile source
types, the Ohio EPA has decided to treat
these source categories separately from
other non-road mobile sources. The
MAR emissions include emissions from
commercial marine, aircraft, and
locomotive sources.
Commercial marine vessels consist of
several different categories of vessel
types. For each vessel type, there are
unique engine types, emission rates, and
activity data sets. The emissions
inventory documentation lists the vessel
types and activity data sources by vessel
type, along with special distribution of
each vessel type.
Locomotive activity was divided into
various rail categories: Class I
operations; Class II/III operations;
passenger trains; commuter lines; and
yard operations. Since Class I operations
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
are expected to be the most significant
rail operations in the three Counties,
operators of Class I operations were
queried for activity and emissionsrelated information for each railroad
line. This approach provided for more
specific estimates of emissions by
railroad line. Class II/III emissions were
based on national fuel consumption and
per employee fuel consumption
estimates. The number of railroad
employees in each county was used to
allocate the fuel consumption to each
county and, therefore, the emissions to
each county.
EPA provided the aircraft emission
estimates based on Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) published
Landing and Take-Off (LTO) rates by
engine type for each airline and major
airport in the State of Ohio. The LTOengine information was combined with
engine type-specific emission factors
developed by the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), and,
through use of a FAA Emissions and
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS),
emissions were calculated and assigned
to each county in the State, including
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties.
The MAR data were processed by
LADCO to calculate July 2002 daily
emissions of VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources
The inventories of on-road mobile
source emissions for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
were developed by the Ohio EPA in
conjunction with the Ohio Department
of Transportation (Ohio DOT), the
Eastgate Regional Council of
Governments (Eastgate), LADCO, and
EPA. Eastgate utilized a regional travel
demand forecast model to simulate
traffic and to forecast traffic flow for
given growth expectations in the
metropolitan areas of Mahoning and
Trumbull counties. In rural areas that
are not covered by the network model,
such as Columbiana County, the
Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) data was used to
estimate vehicle mile of travel (VMT).
The travel demand forecasting model
was used to predict the total daily
vehicle miles traveled and speeds on
roadways. MOBILE6.2 is used to
calculate emissions per mile based on
the VMT and speed projections from the
travel demand forecast model. The most
current vehicle age distribution data,
temperature data and fuel properties
data provided by Ohio EPA was used in
the analysis.
vi. Projected Emissions for the
Attainment Year
Ambient ozone air quality data
showed that Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties met the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the 2004–2006 period.
Ohio EPA used emission estimates for
2004 as the ‘‘attainment year’’ emissions
for the area, to represent the base period
emissions for the demonstrations of
maintenance. See the discussion of the
demonstrations of maintenance below.
The 2004 emissions were estimated by
growing the emissions from the 2002
base year emission levels.
Ohio EPA used point source growth
data provided by individual point
source facilities along with other source
category-specific growth estimates and
emission control estimates to estimate
stationary source VOC and NOX
emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties. LADCO provided
growth and source control projection
data to project VOC and NOX area
source emissions. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization for the area,
Eastgate, provided projections of vehicle
travel estimates (Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT)) and emissions, with MOBILE
6.2 providing the expected changes in
vehicle emission factors. The estimated
2004 emissions have been compared to
the 2002 base year emissions to
demonstrate the basis for the improved
air quality in Mahoning, Trumbull and
Columbiana Counties. See Table 2 above
for a summary of the 2004 VOC and
NOX emissions and for a comparison of
these emissions with the 2002
emissions.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
As part of the December 4, 2006,
redesignation request submittal, Ohio
EPA included requested revisions to the
19443
Ohio SIP to incorporate the ozone
maintenance plan for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties as
required under section 175A of the
CAA. Included in the maintenance plan
is the ozone attainment maintenance
demonstration. This demonstration
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2018 by documenting
attainment year and future projected
VOC and NOX emissions and showing
that future emissions of VOC and NOX
will remain at or below the attainment
year emission levels. Note that an ozone
maintenance demonstration need not to
be based on ozone modeling. See Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–
53100 (October 19, 2001) and 68 FR
25430–25432 (May 12, 2003).
The Ohio EPA projected the VOC and
NOX emissions in Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties to the years of
2009 and 2018 to demonstrate
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for at least 10 years after the
expected redesignation dates for these
areas. For all counties, Ohio EPA used
source growth estimates provided by
LADCO along with mobile source
growth estimates provided by the
Eastgate travel demand model and
MOBILE 6.2 to project the Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
VOC and NOX emissions.
Table 3 summarizes the VOC and
NOX emissions projected to occur in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties Ohio during the demonstrated
maintenance period. The State of Ohio
chose 2018 as a maintenance year to
meet the 10-year maintenance
requirement of the CAA, allowing
several years for EPA to complete the
redesignation rulemaking process. The
State also chose 2009 as an interim year
to demonstrate that VOC and NOX
emissions will remain below the
attainment year levels throughout the
10-year maintenance period. Table 4
summarizes the VOC and NOX
emissions projected to occur in Mercer
County, Pennsylvania over the same
maintenance period.
TABLE 3.—PROJECTED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN MAHONING, TRUMBULL, AND COLUMBIANA COUNTIES, OHIO
[Tons/day]
2004
Attainment
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Source sector
VOC Emissions:
Point (includes EGU) ................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2009
Interim
6.02
24.10
7.95
26.21
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
6.39
22.86
6.24
17.03
18APP1
2018
Maintenance
7.75
23.03
4.90
9.01
Safety
margin
........................
........................
........................
........................
19444
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—PROJECTED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN MAHONING, TRUMBULL, AND COLUMBIANA COUNTIES, OHIO—
Continued
[Tons/day]
2004
Attainment
Source sector
2009
Interim
2018
Maintenance
Safety
margin
Marine-Air-Railroad ...................................................................................
0.32
0.29
0.29
........................
Total VOC Emissions ........................................................................
NOX Emissions:
Point ..........................................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
Marine-Air-Railroad ...................................................................................
64.60
52.81
44.98
*19.62
20.25
2.49
10.26
43.50
6.00
8.32
2.79
8.23
29.32
4.30
12.69
2.96
4.21
11.56
4.01
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total NOX Emissions ........................................................................
82.50
52.96
35.43
*47.07
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
TABLE 4.—PROJECTED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
[Tons/day]
2004
Attainment
Source sector
VOC Emissions:
Point ..........................................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................
Non-Road (includes MAR) ........................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
2009
Interim
2018
Maintenance
Safety
margin
1.73
7.61
3.78
5.93
2.73
7.36
3.41
4.23
3.66
7.83
2.59
2.63
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total VOC Emissions ........................................................................
NOX Emissions:
Point ..........................................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................
Non-Road (includes MAR) ........................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
19.05
17.73
16.71
*2.34
2.93
0.85
2.82
15.83
4.30
0.88
2.35
11.22
5.52
0.89
1.44
4.89
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total NOX Emissions ........................................................................
22.43
18.75
12.74
*9.69
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
The Ohio EPA also notes that the
State’s EGU NOX emissions control
rules stemming from EPA’s NOX SIP call
and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to
be implemented after 2006, will further
lower NOX emissions throughout the
State and upwind of Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties.
This will result in decreased ozone and
ozone precursor transport into
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, and will support maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone standard.
The emissions projections for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio and Mercer County,
Pennsylvania along with the expected
impacts of the State’s EGU NOX control
rules lead to the conclusion that the
Youngstown area should maintain the 8hour ozone NAAQS throughout the
required 10-year maintenance period
and through 2018. The projected
decreases in local VOC and local and
regional NOX emissions indicate that
peak ozone levels in the Youngstown
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
area may actually further decline during
the maintenance period.
Based on the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions, we conclude that Ohio
EPA has successfully demonstrated that
the 8-hour ozone standard should be
maintained in Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties. We believe that
this is especially likely given the
expected impacts of the NOX SIP call
and CAIR. This conclusion is further
supported by the fact that other states in
the eastern portion of the United States
are also expected to reduce regional
NOX emissions through implementation
of their NOX emission control rules for
EGUs and other NOX sources through
the implementation of the NOX SIP call
and CAIR.
d. Contingency Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that
a maintenance plan include such
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the State will
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that might occur after
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
redesignation. The maintenance plan
must identify the contingency measures
to be considered for possible adoption,
a schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation of the selected
contingency measures, and a time limit
for action by the State. The State should
also identify specific indicators to be
used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be
adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a
requirement that the State will continue
to implement all measures with respect
to control of the pollutant(s) that were
included in the SIP before the
redesignation of the area to attainment.
See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, Ohio has adopted contingency
plans to help address possible future
ozone air quality problems in the
Youngstown area. The contingency
plans have two levels of actions/
responses depending on whether a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
is only threatened (Warning Level
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Response), has actually occurred or
appears to be very imminent (Action
Level Response).
A Warning Level Response will be
triggered whenever an annual (1-year)
fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone
concentration of 88 ppb occurs in a
single ozone season in the Youngstown
area. A Warning Level Response will
consist of a study to determine whether
the high ozone value indicates a trend
toward higher ozone concentrations or
whether emissions appear to be
increasing. The study will evaluate
whether the trend, if any, is likely to
continue and, if so, the control measures
necessary to reverse the trend will be
selected for evaluation and possible
adoption. Implementation of necessary
controls in response to a Warning Level
Response triggering will take place as
expeditiously as possible, but in no
event later than 12 months from the
conclusion of the most recent ozone
season (September 30).
An Action Level Response will be
triggered whenever a two year averaged
annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour
ozone concentration of 85 ppb occurs
within the Youngstown area, or
whenever a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard is actually monitored in
either the Ohio or Pennsylvania
portions of the Youngstown area. Ohio
and Pennsylvania have agreed to work
together to address any possible future
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard.
In the event that an Action Level
Response is triggered and is not due to
an exceptional event, malfunction, or
noncompliance with a source permit
condition or rule requirement, Ohio
EPA will determine the additional
emission control measures needed to
assure future attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. Emission control measures that
can be implemented in a short time will
be selected in order to be in place
within 18 months from the close of the
ozone season that prompted the Action
Level Response. Any new emission
control measure that is selected for
implementation will be given a public
review. If a new emission control
measure is already promulgated and
scheduled to be implemented at the
Federal or State level and if that
emission control measure is determined
to be sufficient to address the ozone air
quality problem, additional local
measures may be unnecessary. Ohio
EPA will submit to the EPA an analysis
to assess whether the proposed emission
control measures are adequate to reverse
the increase in peak ozone
concentrations and to maintain the 8hour ozone standard in the maintenance
area. The selection of emission control
measures will be based on cost-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
effectiveness, emission reduction
potential, economic and social
considerations, or other factors that the
Ohio EPA deems to be appropriate.
Selected emission control measures will
be subjected to public review and the
State will seek public input prior to
selecting new emission control
measures. Finally, emission control
measures that can be implemented in a
short period of time will be selected in
order to be in place within 18 months
from the close of the ozone season in
which the Action Level Response is
triggered.
The State’s redesignation request
indicates that the contingency measures
to be considered will be selected from
a comprehensive list of measures
deemed appropriate and effective at the
time the selection is made (after the
need for contingency measures is
triggered). The selection of candidate
contingency measures will be based on
cost-effectiveness, emission reduction
potential, economic and social
considerations, and other factors that
the Ohio EPA deems to be appropriate.
Ohio will solicit input from interested
and affected persons in the subject
maintenance area prior to final selection
of contingency measures.
Although it is not possible at this time
to specify which contingency measures
would actually be implemented, the
Ohio EPA has listed possible
contingency measures. These include:
• Low Reid vapor pressure gasoline;
• Tightening of RACT on existing
sources covered by EPA Control
Technique Guidelines issued in
response to the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments;
• Application of RACT to smaller
existing sources;
• One or more transportation control
measures sufficient to achieve at least
half of a percent reduction in actual
area-wide VOC emissions. The
transportation control measures to be
considered include:
• Trip reduction programs, including:
Employer-based transportation
management plans; area-wide rideshare
programs; work schedule changes; and
telecommuting;
• Traffic flow and transit
improvements; and
• Other new or innovative
transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affected state and
local governments deem appropriate;
• Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit
programs for fleet vehicle operations;
• Controls on consumer products
consistent with those adopted elsewhere
in the United States;
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19445
• Requirements for VOC or NOX
emission offsets for new and modified
major sources;
• Requirements for VOC or NOX
emission offsets for new and modified
minor sources;
• Increase of the ratio of emission
offsets required for new sources; and
• Requirements for VOC or NOX
emission controls on new minor sources
(with emissions of less than 100 tons
per year).
No contingency measures will be
adopted and implemented without
providing the opportunity for full public
participation and comment in the
contingency measure selection process.
A list of VOC and NOX source types
potentially subject to future emission
controls include:
NOX RACT:
• EGUs
• Asphalt batching plants
• Industrial/commercial and
institutional boilers
• Process heaters
• Internal combustion engines
• Combustion turbines
• Other sources with NOX emissions
exceeding 100 tons per year
VOC RACT:
• Consumer products
• Architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings
• Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities
• Automobile refinishing shops
• Cold cleaner degreasers
• Portable fuel containers
• Synthetic organic compound
manufacturing
• Wood manufacturing
• Industrial wastewater
• Aerospace industry
• Ship building
• Bakeries
• Plastic parts coating
• Volatile organic liquid storage
• Industrial solvent cleaning
• Offset lithography
• Industrial surface coating
• Other VOC sources with emissions
exceeding 50 tons per year.
e. Provisions for a Future Update of the
Ozone Maintenance Plan
As required by section 175A(b) of the
CAA, the State commits to review the
maintenance plans 8 years after
redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties to attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as required
by section 175A of the CAA.
We consider Ohio’s ozone
maintenance demonstration and
contingency plan to be acceptable.
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
19446
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
the Ozone Maintenance Plan Which
Can Be Used To Support Conformity
Determinations?
A. How Are the Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets Developed and What Are the
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties?
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, SIP revisions
and ozone maintenance plans for
applicable areas (for ozone
nonattainment areas and for areas
seeking redesignations to attainment of
the ozone standard or revising existing
ozone maintenance plans). These
emission control SIP revisions (e.g.
reasonable further progress and
attainment demonstration SIP
revisions), including ozone maintenance
plans, must create MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions that are
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use that, together with emissions from
other sources in the area, will provide
for attainment or maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS.
Under 40 CFR part 93, MVEBs for an
area seeking a redesignation to
attainment of the NAAQS are
established for the last year of the
maintenance plan (for the maintenance
demonstration year). The State has the
option to establish additional MVEBs
for additional years as deemed
appropriate by the interagency
consultation process. The MVEBs serve
as ceilings on mobile source emissions
from an area’s planned transportation
system and are used to test planned
transportation system changes or
projects to assure compliance with the
emission limits assumed in the SIP. The
MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62188). The preamble also describes
how to establish the MVEBs in the SIP
and how to revise the MVEBs if needed.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the SIP that addresses
emissions from cars, trucks, and other
on-roadway vehicles. Conformity to the
SIP means that transportation activities
will not cause new air quality standard
violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. If a transportation plan
does not conform, most new
transportation projects that would
expand the capacity of the roadways
cannot go forward. Regulations at 40
CFR Part 93 set forth EPA’s policy,
criteria, and procedures for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
demonstrating and assuring conformity
of transportation activities to a SIP.
The Transportation Conformity Rule,
in 40 CFR 93.118(f), provides for
adequacy findings through two
mechanisms. First, 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)
provides for posting a notice to the EPA
conformity Web site at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/adequacy.htm and providing
a 30-day public comment period.
Second, a mechanism is described in 40
CFR 93.118(f)(2) which provides that
EPA can review the adequacy of an
implementation plan submission
simultaneously with its review of the
implementation plan itself. For this
area, EPA is using the first process and
posted the notice on our adequacy Web
site on December 11, 2006. The
comment period closed January 11,
2007, without any comments from the
public on the adequacy of the MVEBs.
Both Ohio and Pennsylvania are
establishing separate State budgets in
the Ohio and Pennsylvania maintenance
plans. When conducting transportation
conformity determinations, the Eastgate
Regional Council of Governments will
use the budgets established for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties. Mobile source emissions will
be constrained by both the Ohio
maintenance plan budgets and the
budgets established for Mercer County
by Pennsylvania. These budgets will
assure that mobile source emissions do
not increase and that the air quality
remains below the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
The Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties ozone
maintenance plan contains VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the years 2009 and
2018. EPA has reviewed the submittal
and has found that the MVEBs for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties meet the adequacy criteria in
the Transportation Conformity Rule.
EPA, through this rulemaking, is
proposing to approve the MVEBs for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties because EPA has determined
that the budgets are consistent with the
control measures and future emissions
projected in the SIP and that Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
can maintain attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the relevant required
10-year period with mobile source
emissions at the levels of the MVEBs.
Ohio EPA has determined the 2018
MVEBs for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties to be 10.36 tons
per day for VOC and 13.29 tons per day
for NOX and the 2009 MVEBs for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties to be 19.58 tons per day for
VOC and 33.71 tons per day for NOX.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
These MVEBs exceed the on-road
mobile source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by the Ohio EPA for 2009 and
2018, but do not exceed the levels
necessary for continued maintenance of
the NAAQS. Through discussions with
all organizations involved in
transportation planning for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio EPA decided to include 15 percent
safety margins in the MVEBs to provide
for mobile source growth not
anticipated in the projected 2009 and
2018 emissions. Ohio EPA has
demonstrated that Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties can maintain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile
source emissions at the levels of the
MVEBs since total source emissions
with the increased mobile source
emissions will remain under the
attainment year levels. These MVEBs
will be separate state area budgets for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio. Pennsylvania
established MVEBs for Mercer County
through the 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan that was submitted with
Pennsylvania’s request for
redesignation. Action on the
Pennsylvania MVEBs will be taken
through separate rulemaking.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan for a
future maintenance year. As noted in
Tables 3 and 4 above, Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties are
projected to have a VOC safety margin
of 22.42 tons per day and a NOX safety
margin of 47.07 tons per day in 2018.
The addition of a portion of the safety
margin to the MVEBs continues to
maintain the emissions levels below the
attainment level.
C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 VOC and NOX
MVEBs for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties (see Table 5) are
approvable because they maintain the
total emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties at or below
the attainment year emission inventory
levels, as required by the transportation
conformity regulations.
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION described in the Unfunded Mandates
BUDGETS
FOR
COLUMBIANA, Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
MAHONING
AND
TRUMBULL Executive Order 13132: Federalism
COUNTIES, OHIO
This action also does not have
Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties Ohio
budgets
Year
2009
Year
2018
VOC (tons/day) .....................
NOX (tons/day) .....................
19.58
33.71
10.36
13.29
VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the Youngstown area
is attainment the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s
maintenance plan for assuring that the
area will continue to attain this
standard. The maintenance plan
demonstrates maintenance to the year
2018 and includes contingency
measures to remedy possible future
violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
and establishes 2009 and 2018 MVEBs
for these Counties. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by
Ohio in conjunction with the
redesignation request.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, September 30, 1993), this action
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Apr 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272,
requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus to
carry out policy objectives, so long as
such standards are not inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19447
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use
voluntary consensus standards, EPA has
no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use such
standards, and it would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in place of a program
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Therefore, the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: April 6, 2007.
Walter W. Kovalick,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7–7352 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 07–1448, MB Docket No. 05–228; RM–
11255]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Kiowa,
KS
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document dismisses a
pending petition for rulemaking filed by
Charles Crawford to allot Channel 233A
at Kiowa, Kansas for failure to state a
continuing interest in the requested
allotment. The document therefore
terminates the proceeding.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202)
418–2738.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 05–228,
adopted March 28, 2007, and released
March 30, 2007. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during normal
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19435-19447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1022; FRL-8301-7]
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Youngstown Area to
Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request for a redesignation of its portion of
the Youngstown area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a request for EPA approval of an
ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. The State public hearing on the submittal was held on January 9,
2007.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Youngstown area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that the State's ozone maintenance
plan for the area is acceptable and, in conjunction with projected
emissions in the Pennsylvania portion of the area (Mercer County), will
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these Counties
through 2018. EPA is proposing approval of the State's request to
redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for purposes of transportation
conformity determinations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-1022, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77
[[Page 19436]]
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office's official hours of operation are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-1022. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hardcopy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, at (312) 353-8656, before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656, morris.patricia@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' Is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as follows:
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the
Basis for EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
the Ozone Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity
Determinations?
VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
We are proposing to take several related actions for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. First, we are proposing to
determine that the interstate Youngstown area (officially, the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon PA-OH area as defined for 8-hour ozone
designation purposes) has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, we
are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties as a requested revision to the Ohio
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The maintenance plan is designed to
keep the area in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11
years, through 2018. Thirdly, we are proposing to find that the Ohio
portion of this area (Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties), has
met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Fourth, as supported by, and consistent with, the ozone maintenance
plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2009 and 2018 VOC and
NOX MVEBs for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
for transportation conformity determination purposes.
These proposed actions pertain to the designations of Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
to the emission controls in these counties related to the attainment
and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC
or NOX emissions source in these counties or live in these
counties, this proposed rule may impact or apply to you. It may also
impact you if you are involved in transportation planning or
implementation of emission controls in this area. It may also impact
you if you breathe air which has passed through the Youngstown area, or
if you are concerned with clean air, human health or the environment.
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
A. General Background
In EPA's April 30, 2004, rulemaking establishing designations and
classifications for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated the
Youngstown area as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA based the designation on ozone data collected during the
2001-2003 period.
On December 4, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a request for
redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull,
[[Page 19437]]
and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based
on ozone data collected in these counties and Mercer County,
Pennsylvania during the 2004-2006 period. On January 9, 2007, the State
of Ohio held a public hearing on the ozone redesignation request and
ozone maintenance plan. Based on a February 15, 2007, submittal from
the State, all information contained in the State's December 4, 2006,
ozone redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's
public review process.
B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006, United States Court of
Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule?
1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The
Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were
inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court
rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in
nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I,
part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to
retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS;
and (4) certain conformity requirements for certain types of Federal
actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard
provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth
below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is
possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified
under Subpart 2. although any future decision by EPA to classify this
area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for
the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation
cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding
policy of evaluating redesignation requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Youngstown area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated to
meet the Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify
for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must
meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992
Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro
Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.
3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g.,
also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St.
Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking. See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly,
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation
request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, Mahoning and
Trumbull Counties and also, separately, Columbiana County were
designated as an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section
175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's ruling
does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas.
First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests, including the requirement to submit a
transportation conformity SIP.\1\ Under longstanding EPA policy, EPA
believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265
F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60
FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation). EPA approved Ohio's
general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR
9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly
retained, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties and separately
[[Page 19438]]
Columbiana County are attainment areas subject to maintenance plans for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee provision requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment provided that:
(1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved an applicable state implementation
plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control
regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions;
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the
state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in several guidance documents. A listing of
pertinent guidance documents is provided in other redesignation actions
(for example in the Federal Register of September 9, 2005, at 70 FR
53606).
V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the Basis
for EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that the Youngstown area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance
plan for the Ohio portion of this area (Columbiana, Mahoning and
Trumbull counties) and the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by
this ozone maintenance plan; and, 3) approve the redesignation of the
Ohio portion to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The basis for our proposed determination and approval is as
follows:
1. The Youngstown Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I based on the
most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the
area. For each monitor in the area and nearby, the average of the
annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured and recorded over a three-year period must not exceed the
ozone standard. Based on the ozone data rounding convention described
in 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, the 8-hour standard is attained if the
area's ozone design value \2\ is 0.085 ppm (85 ppb) or lower. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part
50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone
monitors generally should have remained at the same locations for the
duration of the monitoring period required to demonstrate attainment
(for three years or more \3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value
in the area.
\3\ EPA generally opposes terminating or relocating monitors at
sites that are currently recording violations of the ozone standard.
In addition, EPA encourages states to continue monitoring at most
sites over the long term to confirm maintenance of the ozone
standard and to support the determination of robust ozone
concentration trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the December 4, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the
Ohio EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top
four daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site
in the Youngstown area during the 2004-2006 period. When the
redesignation request was submitted, the complete 2006 monitoring data
had not been quality assured and the data table submitted by Ohio EPA
shows less than 75% data for the Ohio monitoring sites. However, now
the Ohio EPA has completed all quality assurance procedures and the AQS
system has over 75% data completeness for the Ohio sites. The following
table summarizes the worst-case ozone concentrations that are part of
the quality-assured ozone data collected and recorded in these
Counties. These data have been entered into EPA's AQS. The annual
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, along with their
three-year averages are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.--Fourth-High 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
[In parts per billion (ppb)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Monitoring site 2004 2005 2006 Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning OH............................... 345 Oakhill................. 74 83 76 77
Trumbull OH............................... 6346 Kinsman-Bloomfield Rd.. 78 83 74 78
Trumbull OH............................... 842 Youngstown-Kingsville Rd 80 87 82 83
Mercer PA................................. Pa518 (New Castle Road) & 76 87 79 79
Pa418.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These data show that the site-specific ozone design values (average
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over the period
of 2004-2006) for all monitoring sites in the Youngstown area are below
the 85 ppb average ozone standard violation cut-off. These data support
the conclusion that the Youngstown area ozone monitors did not record a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2004-2006 period, and
monitored attainment of the standard during this period.
As discussed below with respect to the ozone maintenance plan, the
State commits to continue ozone monitoring in these Counties.
We believe that the data submitted by the State to the AQS provide
an adequate demonstration that the Youngstown area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to find that the Youngstown
[[Page 19439]]
area, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and These Areas
Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
We have determined that the State of Ohio has met all currently
applicable SIP requirements for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We
have determined that the Ohio SIP meets currently applicable SIP
requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that the
Ohio SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements.
See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these
determinations, we noted the CAA requirements that are applicable to
the areas, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP
meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of
the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
currently applicable requirements of the CAA, those CAA requirements
applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties at the time
the State submits the final, complete ozone redesignation request for
these areas.
a. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for redesignation of an area to
attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet
the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the State's
submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also
the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum and 66 FR 12459,
12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved,
but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See Section
175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St.
Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements: Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: Enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques;
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to
enforce the emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These requirements and SIP elements include, but are not limited to,
the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for
establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor
ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d)
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source
Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e)
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring,
and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g)
provisions for public and local agency participation.
SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA
documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,''
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17,
1993.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air
pollutants (NOX SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR
21147, April 25, 2005). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements
for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area's classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state.
We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we
believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements.
See: Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa,
Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation
(65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions
in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour
[[Page 19440]]
ozone standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR
part 52, subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been
adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains
enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and
analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of
new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing
sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated
resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary
source emissions monitoring and reporting; and, otherwise satisfies the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).
Part D SIP requirements: EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets
applicable ozone SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part
D, for ozone, an area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate,
serious, severe, and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it
will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the
CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment area plan requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in
section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements
for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment
classification.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable requirements are those contained
in Subpart I of Part D, in particular in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and
176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be
found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498). See also 68 FR 4852-4853, in an ozone redesignation notice of
proposed rulemaking for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of section
172 requirements.
No requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard under part D of the
CAA will come due for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties prior
to June 15, 2007. For example, the requirement for an ozone attainment
demonstration, as contained in section 172(c)(1), is not yet
applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
(section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) (section
172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP contingency measures (section
172(c)(9)). All of these required SIP elements are required for
submittal after June 15, 2007, and Ohio has submitted the public
hearing transcript and response to comment to complete the ozone
redesignation request and maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties prior to the due date. Therefore, none of the part
D requirements are considered to be applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties for purposes of redesignation for ozone.
Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects,
conform to the air planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23
U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well
as to all other Federally-supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to
promulgate.
In addition to the fact that part D requirements will not become
due prior to Ohio's submittal of the complete ozone redesignation
request for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, and,
therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be applicable for
redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly believes that it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section
107(d) of the CAA. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because
state conformity rules are still required after redesignation of areas
to attainment of a NAAQS and Federal conformity rules apply where state
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). EPA
approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11,
1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
We conclude that Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties have
satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of
the CAA to the extent that these requirements apply for purposes of
reviewing the State's ozone redesignation request.
b. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties have a fully approved
applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable
requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See the September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage
of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully
approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements
applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties for purposes
of redesignation. No Mahoning, Trumbull, or Columbiana County SIP
provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved. As indicated above, EPA believes that the section
110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of the State's redesignation
request. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements did not
become due prior to Ohio's submittal of the final, complete
redesignation request, they also are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties Are Due To Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
We believe that the State of Ohio has adequately demonstrated that
the observed air quality improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties are due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from the implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other State-adopted measures. In making this
demonstration, the State has documented the changes in VOC and
NOX emissions from all anthropogenic (man-made or man-based)
sources in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties between 2002, an
ozone standard violation year, and 2004, one of the years in which
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties recorded attainment of the
8-hour ozone standard. The Ohio EPA has also
[[Page 19441]]
discussed permanent and enforceable emission reductions have occurred
elsewhere in the State and in other upwind areas that have contributed
to the air quality improvement in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions
totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 for all counties
(Mahoning, Trumbull, Columbiana, and Mercer) in the nonattainment area
as summarized in the State's ozone redesignation submittal. The
Youngstown 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, which is a bi-state area,
must show emission reductions across the entire area. The table shows
all the counties in the area including the Ohio and Pennsylvania
counties.
Table 2.--Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio and Mercer County,
Pennsylvania
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Volatile Organic Compounds
Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 70.51 64.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 95.53 82.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 20.80 19.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 25.44 22.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH- 91.31 83.65
PA VOCs......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH- 120.97 104.93
PA NOX.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above table, it can be seen that the Youngstown area
experienced decreases in VOC and NOX anthropogenic emissions
between 2002 and 2004. The State of Ohio concludes that the differences
in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation
of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements. The State
asserts that these emission reductions along with those occurring
elsewhere in the State and in upwind areas have led to observed
improvements in ozone air quality in the Youngstown area.
Also, the State notes a significant decline in regional
NOX emissions between 2002 and 2004 as the result of the
implementation of State NOX emission control rules for
combustion sources, primarily Electric Generating Units (EGUs), in
compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call and acid rain control
requirements under title IV of the CAA. Besides the NOX
emission reductions occurring within the State itself, the
implementation of statewide NOX emission control rules
occurred in many States east of the Mississippi River. These emission
reductions are assumed to have contributed significantly to the air
quality improvements in the Youngstown area through the reduction of
transported ozone and ozone precursors. The Youngstown area has several
EGUs which show reductions between 2002 and 2004. The EGU
NOX emissions are reduced from 23.36 tons per year in 2002
to 17.93 tons per day in 2004. These reductions are documented in Table
23 of the Ohio submittal. In addition, the area has benefited from the
NOX emission reductions occurring throughout the State of
Ohio and in the surrounding areas. These regional NOX
emission reductions are considered to be permanent and enforceable.
Besides the implementation of the regional NOX emission
controls, the State of Ohio notes that, in the mid-1990's, the State of
Ohio promulgated statewide rules requiring Reasonably Available Control
Techniques (RACT) for significant new sources of VOC emissions. The
RACT rules have been implemented for significant new VOC sources
locating in Ohio subsequent to the State's adoption of the rules. The
Ohio rules are found in OAC Chapter 3745-21. Additional implemented, or
soon to be implemented, emission control rules include several Federal
rules: (1) Tier II emission standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur
content standards (promulgated by EPA in February 2000 and currently
being implemented); (2) heavy-duty diesel engine emission control rules
(promulgated by the EPA in July 2000 and currently being implemented);
and, (3) clean air non-road diesel rule (promulgated by the EPA in May
2004 and currently being phased in through 2009). All of these rules
have contributed to reducing VOC and NOX emissions
throughout the State of Ohio (and in other States surrounding Ohio) and
will contribute to further, future emission reductions in Ohio.
The State of Ohio commits to maintain the existing VOC and
NOX emission controls after Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties are redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and these reductions are required to be maintained under the
Ohio SIP.
4. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have a Fully Approvable
Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Ohio
submitted SIP revision requests to provide for maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown area through 2018, exceeding the 10
year minimum maintenance period required by the CAA.
[[Page 19442]]
a. What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of air
quality maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves
the redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation,
the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates
that maintenance of the standard will continue for 10 years following
the initial 10 year maintenance period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future NAAQS violations.
The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan
should, at minimum, address the following items: (1) The attainment VOC
and NOX emissions inventories; (2) a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the first 10 years of the
maintenance period; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network; (4) factors and procedures to be used for
verification of continued attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan to
prevent and/or correct a future violation of the NAAQS. The Ohio
maintenance plan is designed to work in conjunction with Pennsylvania's
maintenance plan to keep the Youngstown area in attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties?
Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX emission inventories for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, including point
(significant stationary sources), other (area sources, smaller and
widely-distributed stationary sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Railroad
(MAR) mobile sources, non-road (off-road) mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources for 2002 (the base nonattainment year), 2004 (the
attainment year), 2009, and 2018 (the projected maintenance year). To
develop the 2004, 2009, and 2018 emission inventories, the Ohio EPA
projected the 2002 emissions applying various source category-specific
growth factors and emission control factors. The State has documented
how the 2002 base year emissions were derived and how these emissions
were projected to derive the 2004, 2009, and 2018 emissions. The
following summarizes the procedures and sources of data used by the
Ohio EPA to derive the 2002 emissions.
i. Point Sources
The primary source of point source information was facility-
specific emissions and source activity data collected annually by the
State for sources covered by Title V \4\ source permits. This
information includes emissions, process rates, source operating
schedules, emissions control data, and other relevant source
information. The State also used emissions data provided by EPA's EGU
emission inventory, maintained to support the NOX SIP call
emissions trading program and the acid rain control/trading program.
The sources included in the 2002 point source emissions inventory were
identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database system. The emissions
included in this database are facility-reported actual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Title V of the CAA requires source-specific emission permits
detailing all applicable emission control requirements and emission
limits, as specified in the SIP, for each source facility covered by
the State's Title V source permit program and requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio EPA defines point source emissions as those which occur at an
identifiable stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not
emitted from discrete stacks or vents are defined to be fugitive
emissions. Facility-specific fugitive emissions are also reported by
each Title V facility and stored in the Title V STARS database.
Point source emissions included in the 2002 base year emissions
inventory were provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO). LADCO applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate July
weekday emissions rates. The Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties' emissions derived from this set of emissions data were split
into EGU emissions and non-EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year
emissions inventory used to support the Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties ozone redesignation request.
ii. Area (Other) Sources
Area sources are those sources which are generally small, numerous,
and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic
sources. The emissions for these sources are generally calculated using
various surrogates, such as population, estimates of employees in
various occupational groups, etc., and grouped by general source types.
The area source emissions are typically defined at the county level.
Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement
Program (EIIP) emissions estimation methodologies or other
methodologies typically used by other states to estimate the area
source emissions. Area source categories include: Various stationary
combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point
source portion of the emissions inventory); agricultural pesticides;
architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and
commercial solvent usage; solvent cleaning; fuel marketing; graphic
arts; hospital sterilizers; industrial surface coating (minus point
source emissions for this source category); municipal solid waste
disposal; portable fuel containers; privately owned treatment works;
traffic markings; human cremation; industrial fuel combustion;
residential fuel combustion; structural fires; and miscellaneous source
categories. The State has documented the data sources used for each of
these source categories.
iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources
The non-road mobile source emissions inventory was generated
regionally by running EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM).
LADCO applied spatial and temporal allocations to derive emissions for
a July weekday. The basic non-road algorithm for calculating emissions
in NMIM uses base year equipment populations, average load factors,
available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors to
calculate the emissions.
iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR) Sources
Due to the significance of the emissions from these mobile source
types, the Ohio EPA has decided to treat these source categories
separately from other non-road mobile sources. The MAR emissions
include emissions from commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotive
sources.
Commercial marine vessels consist of several different categories
of vessel types. For each vessel type, there are unique engine types,
emission rates, and activity data sets. The emissions inventory
documentation lists the vessel types and activity data sources by
vessel type, along with special distribution of each vessel type.
Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class
I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; commuter
lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations
[[Page 19443]]
are expected to be the most significant rail operations in the three
Counties, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and
emissions-related information for each railroad line. This approach
provided for more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line.
Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per
employee fuel consumption estimates. The number of railroad employees
in each county was used to allocate the fuel consumption to each county
and, therefore, the emissions to each county.
EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and Take-Off (LTO)
rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of
Ohio. The LTO-engine information was combined with engine type-specific
emission factors developed by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and, through use of a FAA Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System (EDMS), emissions were calculated and assigned to each
county in the State, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties.
The MAR data were processed by LADCO to calculate July 2002 daily
emissions of VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources
The inventories of on-road mobile source emissions for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties were developed by the Ohio EPA in
conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT), the
Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate), LADCO, and EPA.
Eastgate utilized a regional travel demand forecast model to simulate
traffic and to forecast traffic flow for given growth expectations in
the metropolitan areas of Mahoning and Trumbull counties. In rural
areas that are not covered by the network model, such as Columbiana
County, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data was used
to estimate vehicle mile of travel (VMT). The travel demand forecasting
model was used to predict the total daily vehicle miles traveled and
speeds on roadways. MOBILE6.2 is used to calculate emissions per mile
based on the VMT and speed projections from the travel demand forecast
model. The most current vehicle age distribution data, temperature data
and fuel properties data provided by Ohio EPA was used in the analysis.
vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year
Ambient ozone air quality data showed that Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties met the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2004-2006 period.
Ohio EPA used emission estimates for 2004 as the ``attainment year''
emissions for the area, to represent the base period emissions for the
demonstrations of maintenance. See the discussion of the demonstrations
of maintenance below. The 2004 emissions were estimated by growing the
emissions from the 2002 base year emission levels.
Ohio EPA used point source growth data provided by individual point
source facilities along with other source category-specific growth
estimates and emission control estimates to estimate stationary source
VOC and NOX emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties. LADCO provided growth and source control projection data to
project VOC and NOX area source emissions. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization for the area, Eastgate, provided projections of
vehicle travel estimates (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)) and emissions,
with MOBILE 6.2 providing the expected changes in vehicle emission
factors. The estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002
base year emissions to demonstrate the basis for the improved air
quality in Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana Counties. See Table 2
above for a summary of the 2004 VOC and NOX emissions and
for a comparison of these emissions with the 2002 emissions.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
As part of the December 4, 2006, redesignation request submittal,
Ohio EPA included requested revisions to the Ohio SIP to incorporate
the ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties as required under section 175A of the CAA. Included in the
maintenance plan is the ozone attainment maintenance demonstration.
This demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through
2018 by documenting attainment year and future projected VOC and
NOX emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and
NOX will remain at or below the attainment year emission
levels. Note that an ozone maintenance demonstration need not to be
based on ozone modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094,
53099-53100 (October 19, 2001) and 68 FR 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
The Ohio EPA projected the VOC and NOX emissions in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to the years of 2009 and
2018 to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least
10 years after the expected redesignation dates for these areas. For
all counties, Ohio EPA used source growth estimates provided by LADCO
along with mobile source growth estimates provided by the Eastgate
travel demand model and MOBILE 6.2 to project the Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties VOC and NOX emissions.
Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected
to occur in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Ohio during the
demonstrated maintenance period. The State of Ohio chose 2018 as a
maintenance year to meet the 10-year maintenance requirement of the
CAA, allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation
rulemaking process. The State also chose 2009 as an interim year to
demonstrate that VOC and NOX emissions will remain below the
attainment year levels throughout the 10-year maintenance period. Table
4 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected to occur in
Mercer County, Pennsylvania over the same maintenance period.
Table 3.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2018
Source sector Attainment 2009 Interim Maintenance Safety margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
Point (includes EGU)........................ 6.02 6.39 7.75 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 24.10 22.86 23.03 ..............
Non-Road Mobile............................. 7.95 6.24 4.90 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 26.21 17.03 9.01 ..............
[[Page 19444]]
Marine-Air-Railroad......................... 0.32 0.29 0.29 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC Emissions..................... 64.60 52.81 44.98 *19.62
NOX Emissions:
Point....................................... 20.25 8.32 12.69 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 2.49 2.79 2.96 ..............
Non-Road Mobile............................. 10.26 8.23 4.21 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 43.50 29.32 11.56 ..............
Marine-Air-Railroad......................... 6.00 4.30 4.01 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total NOX Emissions..................... 82.50 52.96 35.43 *47.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
Table 4.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Mercer County, Pennsylvania
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2018
Source sector Attainment 2009 Interim Maintenance Safety margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
Point....................................... 1.73 2.73 3.66 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 7.61 7.36 7.83 ..............
Non-Road (includes MAR)..................... 3.78 3.41 2.59 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 5.93 4.23 2.63 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC Emissions..................... 19.05 17.73 16.71 *2.34
NOX Emissions:
Point....................................... 2.93 4.30 5.52 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 0.85 0.88 0.89 ..............
Non-Road (includes MAR)..................... 2.82 2.35 1.44 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 15.83 11.22 4.89 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total NOX Emissions..................... 22.43 18.75 12.74 *9.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NOX
emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NOX SIP call and
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented after 2006, will
further lower NOX emissions throughout the State and upwind
of Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties. This will result in
decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties, and will support maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone standard.
The emissions projections for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio and Mercer County, Pennsylvania along with the expected
impacts of the State's EGU NOX control rules lead to the
conclusion that the Youngstown area should maintain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the required 10-year maintenance period and through
2
